[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation; ICANN's Breathtaking Audacity

[Cosmin L. Neagu]

Hi everybody,

I'm new to the list but the ICANN issue is of a philosophical interest
to me for quite some time.

You say that "one person one vote" might be a good option but in my
opinion that is not nearly enough. We have some experience with this
system and it is highly abusable.
There are methods of "guiding" the opinion of the mases and they seem
to work quite well. Even if the opinion of the majority was not
perverted you still have potentially billions of people in the
minority having to accept the majority decisions, however wrong they
may be.

In my opinion a just system would function like this:
- ICANN, IETF or whatever would be in charge of developing a standard
for a massive distributed system out of the possibility of control
from any single entity or group of entities.
  This system, let's call it DNS2 would be something like a DNS
combined with a cryptographic key server and functioning without a
root server.
- a new registered domain/key/tag would be signed by the end user and
would be automatically propagated into the DNS2 grid, any change would
also have to be signed by the end user and would also be automatically
propagated.
- any user using DNS2 could check various nodes for the same
information to be sure that he doesn't get different results.

A system like this would be designed based on core principles of
personal rights and would not delegate any authority to any central
body.
The central body would be able to run it's nodes to provide it's
responses to the user queries and assure everybody that the system is
not abused. Any country, university or private group could run it's
own nodes to have it's own assurances.
Nobody will ever have to vote and hope for the best or loose sleep
because the mass media promoted their own interests and not the end
user interests.

I believe that we reached a point where the technology allows us to
function as society without the need of creating massive nodes of
delegated authority.
Not only that but more, I believe that we reached a point where
delegating authority and relying on these nodes of delegated authority
is inefficient, slow and potentially dangerous.

Regards,
Cosmin L. Neagu

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> [For those seeking the most concise general statement of the problems
> and ideas I'm writing about, the original post at bottom is probably
> the best several paragraphs to show that.] Now follows a brief reply
> to Jeffrey Williams reply:
>
> The classic question of governance is:  What power will oversee the
> exercise of Power?  And who oversees THAT power?
>
> When Roman commanders informed their legionnaires that they had hired
> guards to guard the chastity of their wives while they were away on
> military campaigns, the legionnaire's howls of laughter were so loud
> they can still be heard occasionally through the centuries of
> intervening history: They couldn't stop laughing in response to the
> question of their commanders:
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance